click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20121121
20121129
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6
the 2014 handover to afghan authorities. our pentagon correspondent chris lawrence has been looking into this. what's being considered for a u.s. role in afghanistan after the scheduled pull-out? >> reporter: if you thought 2014 was going to be the end of u.s. troops' involvement, that does not look to be the case. although publicly pentagon officials say it's too early, our source, a u.s. official is telling us that there are several options being discussed inside the pentagon, one of which is to keep about 10,000 u.s. troops in afghanistan past 2014. a small number of those troops would be special operations forces that would be dedicated to counterterrorism missions. the rest of the forces would either be training or advising afghan troops or providing medical support and air support, things like that. there are other options with fewer troops, some with more troops. but this one fits right in the middle of that spectrum. he also told me that one of the deal-breakers when it came to iraq, immunity for u.s. troop, in other words, that they wouldn't be prosecuted under local laws l
the pentagon, thank you, let me begin with a straight forward question, would this deal have happened with or without secretary of state clinton. >> this is a good question lou, answer is yes, and no. remember that 24 hours ago, hamas had agreed to this ceasefire. the egyptians connced them on agree, and many of us were expecting ceasefire at 9:00 p.m. local time, 24 hours ago. it happened 24 hours later, remember, secretary of state clinton was landing at about that time in jerusalem. and israelis wanted to see if perhaps she could, come up with a few more perhaps agreements from the palestinians, she went to ramallah and i am told she appealed to the president, mahmoud abbas. the palestinian president, who has no real bearing on the situation in gaza. but she appealed to him not to about on november 29 to the u.n., a seek obserr states for you palestinians that would be a back-channel way to achieve statehood. i am told that he did not agree to that shetion went to cairo, where the one thing she did achieve is she got the egyptian president, mohamed morsi to be the address if hamas
for the military. the pentagon is well funded. your regional commander could go out. i agree with your critique. the way to get to the source of the critique is not that, you know, susan rice or anybody else doesn't understood what you said. it's to follow the money and give the u.s. the tools. >> shouldn't we rethink where the money goes? one of the reasons diplomatic security is underfunded. the cuts between the state department. the balance between state, diplomacy and military are way off. >> i think the overall issue is susan rice, should she be confirmed and will she be confirmed? john kerry could get the massachusetts seat. that may be in the background. the bottom line is confirmation. you are supposed to tell the truth. if you don't, it's bad. no question. there ought to be instant replay, overwhelming evidence to overrule it when the referee is wrong. there needs to be overwhelming evidence not to support the president's nomination. i think it's unfair to play on this one. >> we have an amazing bit of tape of john mccain making a somewhat similar argument. we'll show it to you after t
for the military solution because the pentagon is well funded and your regional commander has much more ability to go out and act on behalf of the u.s. than the ambassador does. so i agree with your critique, but the way to get to the source of the critique is not that susan rice doesn't understand, but it's to follow the money and -- >> but should we rethink our priorities as to where the money goes. the cuts to the state department, the balance between defense and state, diplomacy and military, are way off in our country. >> i think the issue with susan rice and will and should she be confirmed? i think the republicans would rather have john kerry give them a chance to get the massachusetts seat. but the bottom line is confirmation, yeah, you're supposed to tell the truth and if you don't, that's bad, no question. but there ought to be like instant replay. you have to have overwhelming evidence to overrule it, even when the referee is wrong. there has to be overwhelming evidence to not support the president's nomination. >> we have an amazing bit of tape of john mccain making a somewhat simil
.i.a. amid scandal. there could also be big changes at the pentagon. as well at state department. whoever the president chooses, it could impact, for example, the use of armed drones taking out al qaeda overseas. and lots of other security matters. and now, a fox news contributeor and pollster joining us, and former senior advisor to senator john mccain. the use of the unmanned drones to take out terrorists who want to murder americans, on its face it should be a no-brainer but national security appears to be politicized. >> that is right. to their credit the obama administration in the days up to the election were trying to codify the rules and regulations for making those difficult decisions. however, we are alonging at the possibility of massive defense cuts. we have new personnel, as you suggested, coming in potentially to state, defense, and c.i.a., and we have our whole national security apparatus being overhauled at a time when we are in great peril as reporting from the middle east, particularly gaza strip and israel suggests. >>gregg: president obama, it can be said, has a checke
of power today, it is the size of the pentagon and those devil is actually had a bigger problem than us. but i would be interested in when you're thinking about policy, do you look at that the source of leverage, or did this restrain american options in terms of what you can do? >> with respect to the deficit and debt of the national security liability, we need our senior leadership and the ability to take it on. we have an opportunity to do so, we have a requirement to do so. the requirement and foundation of national power is ultimately economic in terms of global influence. and in terms of supporting the military. we have, i think, members of the house will step up in the coming months. >> how did you look at your surplus of the united states? do they say that we have america under control because of the treasury? >> superposition to the united states is very important. it is very decisive. so there is no intention for us with this economic relationship. >> i'm going to open it up to the floor. we have four microphones around the room. josh grogan is over here. >> thank you very muc
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6